Moldova State University

Faculty of Law

Public Law Department

Individual Work for Criminal Law

 
 
 

Done by:

Cristian Croitor

Professor:

Gârla Lilia

1
1st Case.
On June 16, 2019, at 22:00, the defendant Craciuc Corneliu met with his ex-
mother-in-law, Oboroc Angela. As a result of a conflict between them, he
intentionally showed an aggressive and violent behavior towards the latter as a
result of which he grabbed her by the left hand by the neck, trying to strangle her,
after which he punched her twice in the head. qualifies as minor bodily injury with
short-term health disorder.

1) First court
By the sentence of the Edineț Court of February 19 2021, Craciuc Corneliu
was convicted based on art. 2011 para. (1) lett. a) Criminal Code to 1 year in
prison. Pursuant to art. 85 of the Criminal Code, by partially adding the
sentence applied according to the sentence of the Edineț Court of
26.01.2018, the final sentence of 1 year and 6 months imprisonment was
established, with execution in a semi-closed penitentiary. Also from the
defendant was collected for the benefit of the state the judicial expenses in
the amount of 896 lei.
2) Appeal court
The provisions of art. 90 para. (1) Criminal Code shall apply to Craciuc
Corneliu, suspending the execution of the final sentence with imprisonment
for a period of 1 year 6 months, appointed based on art. 85 of the Criminal
Code by the sentence of the Edineț Court of 19.02.2021, for a probation
period of 4 years.
3) Appeal court
It is noted that the appellate court committed the following errors of law.
a) In accordance with art. 75 para. (1) The Criminal Code shall apply to the
person convicted of an offense justly punished within the limits set out in
Special Part 4 of this Code and in strict accordance with the provisions of
the General Part of this Code. According to art. 90 para. (1) and (10)
Criminal Code, if, when establishing the punishment imprisonment for a
maximum period of 5 years for intentional offenses, the court, taking into
account the circumstances of the case and the person of the guilty party,
will conclude that it is not rational for him to serve the sentence to the
punishment applied if, during the fixed probation period, the convict
will not commit a new crime and, by observing the probation
conditions, he will justify the trust granted to him. If the convicted
person with a conditional suspension of the execution of the sentence
commits a new intentional offense during the probation period, the
court shall establish a punishment under the conditions of art. 85
Penal Code.
b) According to art. 85 para. (1) and (3) of the Criminal Code, if, after the
sentence is pronounced, but before the full execution of the sentence, the
2
 convict has committed a new crime, the court adds, in whole or in part, to
the punishment applied by the new sentence the unexecuted part of
punishment established by the previous sentence.
The final punishment in case of a cumulation of sentences must be
higher than the punishment established for committing a new crime
and than the unexecuted part of the punishment pronounced by the
previous sentence of the court.
Taking into account these factors, the court decides:
I) The ordinary appeal declared by the prosecutor in the Bălți District
Prosecutor's Office, Octavian Bodareu is admitted
II) The decision of the Criminal College of the Balti Court of Appeal
of April 27, 2021 is quashed
III) The sentence of the Edineț Court of February 19, 2021 is
maintained, on the grounds that the appeal was wrongly admitted.

2nd Case 
On 13.12.2019, around 10:00, while his mother, Cojuhari Valentina and sister
Blanari Victoria were away from home, Cojuhari Gheorghe, acting intentionally,
showing an extraordinary brutality and manifesting a clear lack out of respect for a
more mature person, continuing his violent actions, he abused his grandmother
Blanari Elizaveta, namely, he pushed her hard, a fact from which Blanari Elizaveta
fell on his left hand as a result causing a closed fracture .

1) First court
By the sentence of the Balti Court of December 17, 2020, Cojuhari Gheorghe was
found guilty and convicted on the basis of:
- art. 2011 para. (2) lett. c) Criminal Code, to the punishment of 1 year
imprisonment;
- art. 3201 Criminal Code, to the punishment of 3 months imprisonment.
Pursuant to art. 84 para. (1) Criminal Code, for concurrence of crimes, by the
partial cumulation of the applied punishments, Cojuhari Gheorghe was established
the final punishment of 1 year 1 month imprisonment, with execution in a semi-
closed penitentiary.

3
 2) Appeal court
The sentence of the first instance was appealed by the lawyer Anton Vasile
on behalf of the defendant Cojuhari Gheorghe, who requested its quashing
on the side of the punishment, with the pronouncement of a new decision, by
which to establish a non-custodial sentence for Cojuhari Gheorghe , in the
form of unpaid community service.

By the decision of the Criminal College of the Bălţi Court of Appeal of

February 17, 2021, the declared appeal was admitted, partially quashed, with
a new decision according to the manner established for the first instance, by
which Cojuhari Gheorghe, found guilty of committing the crime provided
by:

- art. 2011 para. (2) lett. c) Criminal Code, to the punishment of 1 year
imprisonment;
- art. 3201 Criminal Code, to the punishment of 3 months imprisonment.

Pursuant to art. 84 para. (1) Criminal Code, for concurrence of crimes, by partial
cumulation, Cojuhari Gheorghe was sentenced to 1 year and one month prison,
with the application of art. 90 Criminal Code and conditional suspension of
execution for a probationary period of 1 year.

3) Appeal court
The decision of the appellate court is appealed with ordinary appeal by the
prosecutor in the Balti District Prosecutor's Office, Prisacari Lilia, who
requests its quashing, maintaining the sentence of the first instance

In arguing for the appeal, the appellant claims that:

- individualized punishments were applied contrary to the legal provisions;
- the circumstances invoked by the appellate court to establish the sentence,
namely that the defendant Cojuhari Gheorghe partially admitted guilt, is
deaf-mute, previously was not charged with criminal and misdemeanor, can
not be considered as circumstances that would justify the application of a
sentence with the conditional suspension of its execution, they being
insufficient in relation to the circumstances of the case;
- according to the statements of the injured party, the defendant is a very
aggressive person, constantly assaulting his mother Cojuhari Valentina and
his grandmother Blanari Elizaveta

Examining the admissibility in principle of the ordinary appeal declared

in relation to the materials of the case, the Criminal College concludes that it
is inadmissible, being clearly unfounded.
So de Criminal College decides:

4
I) The appellate court rightly concluded that the defendant is to serve his
sentence without deprivation of liberty, and during the probation
period of 1 year he is to exhibit exemplary behavior, not to commit
other crimes and by exemplary behavior and honest work, to justify
trust what was granted to him.

3rd Case 
Braniște Rodica on 28.04.2019, approximately at 14:00, being in the
common yard following a conflict initiated between his father Branişte
Fiodor and his concubine Mogîldea Victor, pursuing the purpose of applying
physical violence against his concubine, with whom coexist and thus, acting
with direct intent, she stabbed him in the left lumbar region with a kitchen
knife.

1) First court
By the sentence of the Chisinau Court of August 14, 2020, Braniște
Rodica was found guilty of committing the crime provided by art. 2011
para. (1) lett. a) Criminal Code, being punished in the form of 140 hours
of unpaid work for the benefit of the community.
2) Appeal Court
The sentence of the first instance was appealed by the prosecutor, who
requested its quashing, retrial of the case and pronouncing a new decision
according to the manner established for the first instance, by which
Braniște Rodica was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, with suspension
conditional on its execution pursuant to art. 90 Criminal Code for a
probationary period of 2 years.

By the decision of the Criminal College of the Chisinau Court of Appeal

of February 9 2021, the declared appeal was admitted, and a new
decision was pronounced, according to the manner established for the
first instance, by which Braniște Rodica, found guilty of committing the
crime provided by art. 2011 para. (1) lett. a) Criminal Code, was
sentenced of 2 years imprisonment was established, with the conditional
suspension of its execution based on art. 90 para. (1), (6) lett. c), g)
Criminal code, for a probationary period of 2 years, with the obligation to
participate in a special counseling program in order to reduce violent
behavior.
3) Appeal Court
The decision of the appellate court is challenged by ordinary appeal by
lawyer Gonța Maxim on behalf of the defendant Braniște Rodica.

5
 Examining the admissibility in principle of the ordinary appeal declared
in relation to the materials of the case, the Criminal College concludes
that it is inadmissible.
The Criminal College invokes that from the content of the decision of the
court of it is clear that the appellate court took into account the
circumstances invoked by the appellant, being fully guided by the general
criteria of individualization of the criminal punishment, in order to
achieve the purpose of criminal law, to restore social equity, correction
and re-education of the defendant Branişte Rodica as well
preventing the commission of new crimes, both on its part and on the part
of other persons.

Consequently, the Criminal College did not find any legal errors
relied on by the appellant as affecting the judgment under appeal under
the contested issues, because the solution adopted is legal and grounded,
and the ordinary appeal declared is inadmissible, being manifestly
unfounded.

4th Case 
Andrei Ana was accused of the fact that on June 21, 2018, at the home of
Lungu Valentin, with whom he was in a relationship similar to his wife
(cohabitation), acting intentionally, in order to cause physical suffering to
the concubine, during one of the quarrels , what appeared between her and
her concubine, she intentionally hit him several times with the wooden
handle of a screed, over different regions of the body, including the
abdomen, as a result of which, the victim Lungu Valentin died in July 2018.

1) First court
By the sentence of the Orhei Court of June 14, 2019, Andrei Ana was
acquitted of the accusation filed for committing the crime provided by
art. 2011 para. (4) Criminal Code, on the grounds that the deed was not
committed by the defendant.
2) Appeal Court
The prosecutor challenged the sentence on appeal, requesting its
quashing, retrial of the case and pronouncing a new decision, according
to the manner established for the first instance, by which Andrei Ana to
be found guilty and convicted based on art. 2011 para. (4) Criminal Code,
to 13 years imprisonment, with the execution of the sentence in the
penitentiary for women, and to order the collection from the account of
Andrei Ana for the benefit of the state, the judicial expenses in the
amount of 4249.81 lei.
In the motivation of the appeal, the accuser indicated the fact that the first
instance erroneously assessed the administered evidence and did not
6
 report them correctly to the constitutive elements of the crime committed
by the defendant Andrei Ana
By the decision of the Criminal College of the Chisinau Court of Appeal
of October 7, 2020, the prosecutor's appeal was admitted, the sentence
was quashed, with the retrial of the case and a new decision, according to
the manner established for the first instance by which Andrei Ana was
found guilty and convicted. the offense provided by art. 2011 para. (4)
Criminal Code, to 12 years 8 months imprisonment, with the execution of
the sentence in a closed penitentiary for women.
3) Appeal Court
The prosecutor declares an appeal against the decision of the appellate
court, pursuant to art. 427 para. (1) point 6) Code of Criminal Procedure,
requesting its partial quashing, in the part of solving the requirements
regarding the collection of judicial expenses, with the retrial of the case
in this part, by the same appellate court.

In support of the arguments in the appeal, the prosecution alleges that the
appellate court, judging the appeal, did not resolve the issue regarding the
collection of legal costs from the defendant Andrei Ana, which were
borne by the criminal investigation body for conducting forensic
examinations, in the amount of 4249.81 lei, and the omission of the
appellate court to solve the requirement regarding the collection of
judicial expenses, is equivalent to the failure to resolve the merits.

Judging the ordinary appeal on the basis of the material in the case file
and arguments put forward, the enlarged Criminal College concludes that
it is to be accepted.

Judging in fact and in law the appeal request of the prosecutor according
to the rules established for the first instance, the enlarged Criminal
College finds that the correct appellate court found the guilt of the
defendant Andrei Ana in committing the detained crime
in his indictment, a correctly individualized punishment was applied to
her, but it failed to solve, when deliberating and adopting the decision,
the state accuser's request regarding the judicial expenses in the amount
of 4,249, 81 lei in charge of the defendant Andrei Ana.
Thus, the enlarged Criminal College attests that the hierarchically inferior
court did not rule on all the reasons invoked in the prosecutor's appeal,
namely, regarding the settlement of the issue regarding the collection or
non-collection from the defendant of the judicial expenses.

( According to art. 229 para. (1) - (2) Code of Criminal Procedure, the
judicial expenses are paid by the convict or are transferred to the state
account. )
7
5th Case 
Buraga Eugeniu, on 16.06.2019 being in a state of alcohol intoxication,
while he was in his own household, intending to cause his wife Buraga
Maria, bodily injuries and physical pain, he sprayed the last one with a
slightly flammable substance and set it on fire, causing first, second, third
degree burns, facts that qualify based on this criterion as serious bodily
injury.

1) First court
By the sentence of the Cimișlia Court of November 10, 2020, Buraga
Eugeniu was found guilty of committing the crime provided by art. 2011
para. (3) lett. a) Criminal Code, being sentenced to 6 years, with
execution in a semi-closed penitentiary.
The amount of 7,608.66 lei was collected from the defendant's account in
the state's account as court costs.
2) Appeal Court
The sentence of the first instance was appealed by the lawyer Zagaican
Tudor on behalf of the defendant, requesting the quashing of the sentence
in the establishment of the punishment, the retrial of the case and the
pronouncing of a new decision, by which to establish a
milder punishment.

By the decision of the Judicial College of the Comrat Court of Appeal of

January 26 2021, the appeal was admitted, the sentence was quashed in
order to establish the sentence, the case was retrialed and a new decision
was pronounced in this part, by which the defendant Buraga Eugeniu was
sentenced to 4 years in prison, with execution in a semi-closed
penitentiary.
3) Appeal Court

The decision of the appellate court is appealed with an ordinary appeal by

the prosecutor in the Gagauzia ATU Prosecutor's Office, Sîrbu Lilia,
requesting the quashing of the decision with the maintenance of the
sentence, invoking:

- the appellate court, setting the minimum sentence, did not take full account
of the circumstances of the case and the person of the guilty party;

- the appellate court did not take into account the absence of mitigating
circumstances, the presence of aggravating circumstances

8
- committing the crime while intoxicated;

- after committing the crime, the defendant did not take any action to help
his wife, did not call an ambulance, continued his daily activity, which
shows the cynical attitude of the defendant;

- as a result of the defendant's actions, the injured party suffered serious

bodily injuries;

In verifying the legality of the judgment under appeal in this respect, the
Enlarged Criminal Court notes that the grounds of appeal and the appellant's
allegations invoked in the appeal were confirmed following the investigation
of the case materials.

So the Criminal Court decides:

the declared appeal is to be admitted, with the partial annulment of the

decision of the Judicial College of the Comrat Court of Appeal of January
26, 2021 regarding Buraga Eugeniu in the part of establishing the
punishment, with maintaining in this part the sentence of the first instance,
because the grounds for appeal have been confirmed.